Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Some Thoughts on Hiring at a New Startup

m.brianmcmanus.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–77 of 77 posts

Re: Some Thoughts on Hiring at a New Startup

#71

Post by 0xCAFEFARE »

twic wrote: post #49
felixgallo wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the downside, then you're working at a company that hires its staff by bar conversations, rather than by attempting to determine competency and mutual fit.

A rigorous interview process is a huge plus for me. Not because I'm a masochist, but because I want to work with people who are at least as good as me. A company that hires after a conversation in a bar is likely to have a much wider range of abilities.

Just because an interview is rigorous doesn't mean you will be working with competent people. It can often mean the exact opposite.

Re: Some Thoughts on Hiring at a New Startup

#72

Post by rz2k »

user5994461 wrote: post #61
rz2k wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do agree with what you're saying, but also know of instances in finance where people have been fired for theft, then fired for the same thing again, because people were too wary of giving any information other than period of employment. Similar stories also occur among managers that move from one small town government to the next. The laws that these people are benefiting from are meant to protect people like whist…

These laws also protect you against the manager who didn't like you, the terrible boss, or simply the co-worker who had different business goals than you. There characters are far more common than cases of thefts. Don't want them to have lasting implications on your career.

Do I think people in tech should be subject to the type of popularity contests that domestic workers in Imperial Britain experienced? No.

My point was that there is enough caution around these sorts of conversations with references, that companies already avoid them, even though it might expose them to other dangers.

I think it was a potentially harmful suggestion, because if it were a more widespread practice, people's career prospects would increasingly change for non-meritocratic reasons, and therefore the productivity within the industry as a whole would suffer. However, it's simply easier to talk about the potential legal jeopardy it puts people in in the near term.

Re: Some Thoughts on Hiring at a New Startup

#73

Post by Clubber »

user5994461 wrote: post #66
ryandrake wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at it from the candidate's point of view. Depending on what company I'm working for, I get 10, maybe 15 crappy days of paid time off that I have to split between vacation, sickness, and YOUR interview. If you take an entire day of my time, I can only do that max 10-15 times in the year, and that's if I don't get sick and have no vacation. I'm going to highly favor a company that does not make me blow one of thos…

You're kidding right? You americans only got 10, 15 days top per year? really? I have a hard time taking seriously a company that doesn't give me 25 days in EU. (better be with 25 sick days :D).

Ya, standard is 2 weeks starting off, then it increases over the years. You also usually have to actually accrue those two weeks over an entire year. Usually caps out at around 5 weeks or so.

For me it isn't the PTO. Say I want to interview at 10 companies to see which is the best fit. That's 10 days of interviewing. If they are all 3 day interviews, that's an entire month.

I get tired of talking to people about nothing after an hour. If someone wants to bring 5 people for me to talk to about smalltalk and nothing really of substance, I won't do very well.

20 years ago, a friend who worked for a guy who would hire 10 people then after a few weeks, fire most of the ones leaving just the best. I live in an "at will" state. I guess most people just don't have the stomach for that sort of thing, so they try to make up for it with 3 days of doing nothing really relevant to the job.

Re: Some Thoughts on Hiring at a New Startup

#74

Post by bdmac97 »

jimduk wrote: post #9

Thoughts on the final 'Offer' stage. If it's your startup, be brutally honest with your first hires. Put yourself in their shoes when you make the offer. Explain it like you would explain it to yourself. - Tell them, unprompted, key difficulties that may lie ahead (in an upbeat manner) - Sell them on the goal, but don't sell them that they are the right person - that's their choice - Do not make promises you can't ke…

Absolutely agree with these points!

Re: Some Thoughts on Hiring at a New Startup

#75

Post by bdmac97 »

tresante wrote: post #4

Great advice. I was wondering if anyone out there has experience of sourcing technical leads when what's primarily on offer is equity for a founding/lead role at a bootstrapped startup with an early product. Clearly you need to have a compelling vision, show potential and find people in the right frame of mind/stage in their career but I'm wondering if I'm missing any important channels? So far here are a few I've tr…

IMO, and as you mentioned, your best bet in those early days is to rely on your network and have that insanely compelling vision with which to sell them on. I think you need a certain level of trust with people for them to be willing to bet a significant chunk of their time and such an inordinate amount of energy on your vision. Conversely no matter how much the person may love you, if your vision for the company is a giant pile of "meh" then you won't (and shouldn't) have much luck convincing them either.

The two go hand in hand for your first few hires.

Re: Some Thoughts on Hiring at a New Startup

#76

Post by twic »

0xCAFEFARE wrote: post #71
twic wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A rigorous interview process is a huge plus for me. Not because I'm a masochist, but because I want to work with people who are at least as good as me. A company that hires after a conversation in a bar is likely to have a much wider range of abilities.

Just because an interview is rigorous doesn't mean you will be working with competent people. It can often mean the exact opposite.

How so?

Re: Some Thoughts on Hiring at a New Startup

#77

Post by georgespencer »

nrjdhsbsid wrote: post #57
georgespencer wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What in particular sounds horrible? It's been a very effective way of making sure we ramp up hires quickly because we have opinions from multiple people who worked with them.

References are stupid to rely on. Opinions are just... Opinions. If a shop was asking around for what is essentially gossip about me I would run for the hills. Some real problems relying on references that aren't really fixable too: #1 good luck getting references from anyone they weren't friends with. If you "find your own" you're a special kind of evil if they're still employed. You could make someone lose their jo…

> Opinions are just... Opinions. If a shop was asking around for what is essentially gossip about me I would run for the hills.

This is insane. By this logic one would never take any advice about how to work productively with someone, what someone's strengths and weaknesses are… centuries of management theory have been reduced to "opinions and gossip".

Post reply on HN